Habitual Infringer: Delhi High Court Restrains Shoe Brand's Use Of Harley Davidson's Eagle Logo In Trademark Infringement Case
|The Delhi High Court passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of Harley-Davidson LLC.
Remarking on the shoe brand's habitual infringement, including selling products copying the likeness of established brands on third-party websites, the Delhi High Court restrained its use of Harley Davidson's 'Eagle' logo in a trademark case.
The Court passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of Harley-Davidson LLC (Plaintiff) against the defendant shoe seller. The Suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the trademarks and copyright of the Plaintiff and passing off their goods and services as that of the Plaintiff.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held, “Based on the discussion above, a clear case of infringement of trademarks and copyright is made out. Since the artistic elements of the rival marks are nearly identical, the class of consumers targeted by both parties directly overlaps, and the channels of trade both online and physical stores are identical. Consequently, there exists a likelihood that consumers may mistakenly associate the defendant’s infringing products with the plaintiff or perceive them as a variant of the plaintiff’s products, causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.”
Advocate Ranjan Narula appeared for the Plaintiff, while Advocate Arnav Goyal represented the Defendant.
Brief Facts
In India, the Plaintiff has obtained several registrations for its different trademarks/names/devices. It was submitted that because of the long uninterrupted use, the Plaintiff’s marks had come to exclusively denote and indicate the Plaintiff's goods. It was submitted that the Plaintiff had also spent a substantial amount of money globally including India to popularize its ‘harley-Davidson’ branded products that bear the logos as well.
Upon investigation, it was found that the Defendant was advertising and conducting business through third-party platforms where they were selling and supplying the infringing products bearing the impugned mark.
Court’s Reasoning
“A perusal of the online listings of the defendant would show that the defendant is a habitual infringer who is not only selling the products bearing the impugned trade mark but also sells products on third-party websites infringing upon the likeness of other established brands,” the Bench noted.
“The defendant has taken an unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trademarks/artistic works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks without any plausible explanation. Therefore, the plaintiff has established a case of passing off as well,” the Court held.
The Bench noted, “At this stage, it may be relevant to note that despite being given multiple opportunities, the defendant failed to bring on record its written statement and failed to file a reply to the present application…Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances presented in this case, this Court also awards damages and costs amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Therefore, this is a fit case where a summary judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant…In view of the foregoing analysis, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”
Cause Title: H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Vijaypal Dhayal (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2489)
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Advocates Ranjan Narula, Shakti Priyan Nair and Parth Bajaj
Defendant: Advocate Arnav Goyal